2) What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument of this film is about the chemical addiction that we have as a society. We put chemical additives into all of our products, and as a result, they have begun to accumulate in our bodies. 3) What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
One of the sustainability problems that the film addresses, is that we do not know how much of these toxins are too much for our bodies to take. In the film, the doctors tell Carol that her heavy metal levels in her blood are normal. This is interesting in that it has become okay that people have escalated levels of pollutants in their blood. As these levels do build up, bioaccumulation occurs and animals at the higher end of the food chain, humans, bear the brunt of these problems. However it almost seems fair because we are the cause of it as well. The bioaccumulation in fish has led to problems with the hearing ability in some cultures of Inuit people.
4) What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was very compelled by how escalated levels of pollutants in the body are considered “ordinary.” This is quite disturbing that we have allowed ourselves to acclimate to pollution being increasing prevalent in our bodies. The discussion about decreased sperm counts and male deformation was also very scary and compelling.
5) What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was completely unconvinced by Carol’s attempt at being defiant and leaving her blood plasma with the chemical company. She went through so much trouble to get it taken and read, and then she just handed it over in a very non-compelling way. I understand that she was trying to accomplish the sense of her displeasure with the company, but it was almost unnecessary at that point.
6) What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I believe that this film best addresses an audience who is already somewhat educated in some type of environmental sustainability issues. It is a very in depth and inaccessible problem of
7) What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I think that more case studies of the effects of toxins on people are needed. The few provided certainly were not enough to convince me that they were not just isolated cases. I believe that this would help enhance its educational value and solidify the facts given.
8) What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
I think the most effective action that needs to be taken is stricter regulation from the government and other groups. Just as important, is for people to be aware of what they are eating, where they are living, what chemicals they are using and how they’re being disposed of, and etc.
9) What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
I was interested to see some of the history of chemistry and future implementations of it as well. I was especially curious to see if there is any work in to “sustainable chemistry” and I was surprised to find that there is. This seems like a very interesting and viable future solution to many of our problems. http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=20956 http://pubs.acs.org/cen/archive/
2) What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument of this film is about the chemical addiction that we have as a society. We put chemical additives into all of our products, and as a result, they have begun to accumulate in our bodies.
3) What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
One of the sustainability problems that the film addresses, is that we do not know how much of these toxins are too much for our bodies to take. In the film, the doctors tell Carol that her heavy metal levels in her blood are normal. This is interesting in that it has become okay that people have escalated levels of pollutants in their blood.
As these levels do build up, bioaccumulation occurs and animals at the higher end of the food chain, humans, bear the brunt of these problems. However it almost seems fair because we are the cause of it as well. The bioaccumulation in fish has led to problems with the hearing ability in some cultures of Inuit people.
4) What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was very compelled by how escalated levels of pollutants in the body are considered “ordinary.” This is quite disturbing that we have allowed ourselves to acclimate to pollution being increasing prevalent in our bodies. The discussion about decreased sperm counts and male deformation was also very scary and compelling.
5) What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was completely unconvinced by Carol’s attempt at being defiant and leaving her blood plasma with the chemical company. She went through so much trouble to get it taken and read, and then she just handed it over in a very non-compelling way. I understand that she was trying to accomplish the sense of her displeasure with the company, but it was almost unnecessary at that point.
6) What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I believe that this film best addresses an audience who is already somewhat educated in some type of environmental sustainability issues. It is a very in depth and inaccessible problem of
7) What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I think that more case studies of the effects of toxins on people are needed. The few provided certainly were not enough to convince me that they were not just isolated cases. I believe that this would help enhance its educational value and solidify the facts given.
8) What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
I think the most effective action that needs to be taken is stricter regulation from the government and other groups. Just as important, is for people to be aware of what they are eating, where they are living, what chemicals they are using and how they’re being disposed of, and etc.
9) What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
I was interested to see some of the history of chemistry and future implementations of it as well. I was especially curious to see if there is any work in to “sustainable chemistry” and I was surprised to find that there is. This seems like a very interesting and viable future solution to many of our problems.
http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=20956
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/archive/